![]() ![]() |
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
For Sale Ads |
Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.
Original Message
Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more?
Posted by Axon on September 11, 2007 at 21:49:26:
That is, if any of you have an AES membership to read it. But, I guess nobody here does... Oh! Wait. I've got the article right here. Along with your moms. ZING!
"Virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better... Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions... Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market."
In other words, SACD and DVD-A releases generally sound better than CD, for reasons that have nothing to do with the encoding. Everybody - including (almost) all the DBT folks at HydrogenAudio - agree with that.